In a 2001 decision in Robinson v. Bartels, a NJ federal court invalidated New Jersey’s one-year durational residency requirement for state legislative candidates following a redistricting cycle, on federal constitutional grounds. Earlier this year, the NJ State Supreme Court disagreed, and enjoined a winning state legislative candidate from taking office. Last week, the federal court revisited the issue, affirming the original decision (invalidating the requirement and enjoining its enforcement). (h/t Flavio Komuves).

On top of the discussion of the federal constitutional issues at the conjunction of redistricting and durational residency requirements, the opinion has an interesting discussion of the effect of a federal injunction on state officials. A similar issue (arising out of a consent decree) came up in Ohio earlier this year.

Forthcoming Publications, Recent Articles, and Working Papers

Cheap Speech and What It Has Done (to American Democracy), First Amendment Law Review (forthcoming 2018) (draft available)

The 2016 U.S. Voting Wars: From Bad to Worse, William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal (forthcoming 2018) (draft available)

Essay: Race or Party, Race as Party, or Party All the Time: Three Uneasy Approaches to Conjoined Polarization in Redistricting and Voting Cases, William and Mary Law Review (forthcoming 2018) (draft available)